Levy's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Levy's Estate, 161 Pa. 189 (Pa. 1894)
28 A. 1068; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 663
Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Williams

Levy's Estate

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We find it impossible to believe that the testatrix intended to dispose of her whole estate by the use of any of the words which are claimed to have such an effect in the four testamentary papers signed by her. Those words did not purport to include anything but money, and the immediate context in each instance is of such a character as to preclude the possibility of attributing to her any other intent than to make a gift of money *197distinctively as such. The great bulk of the estate to which she was entitled at the time of her death had in it no money at all. It consisted of a number of items of property, not one of which was money in any sense. While it is perfectly true that the word money may, when so intended by the testator, include any kind of property, even land, it can never have that effect when the text of the testament clearly shows it was not so intended. We concur with, the opinion of the majority of the court below, and, substantially for the reasons there expressed, we affirm the decree.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellants.

Reference

Full Case Name
Levy's Estate. Altemus's Appeal
Cited By
12 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Will — Residuary estate — “ Money ” — Disinheriting heir. While the word ‘ ‘ money ” may, when so intended by the testator, include any kind of property, even land, it can never have that effect when the text of the testament clearly shows that it was not so intended. Testatrix left to survive her one son and three daughters. Her will was in four parts, each separately signed and witnessed, and each relating to a particular child. It contained specific bequests of household effects and small bequests to servants. It also contained these clauses: “If any money not disposed of in my name is to my credit, I wish my daughters to share equally their part,” and “ any sum of money I may have by me to be equally divided between my three daughters.” There was no other provision as to the residue or balance of her estate. Held, that under the circumstances of the estate, the word “ money” did not include the estate generally.